The Early Church Fathers & the Mystery of John

Msgr. Frank Lane uses early Christian documents and historical context to understand how the first Christians interpreted Scripture.
“If in fact Jesus Christ was truly human and truly divine, and if in fact he enters into us as persons, then our full humanity must be engaged in our response to the Lord” - Msgr. Frank Lane
(This talk was originally given in 2004 at the CHNetwork's "Deep in History" conference)
About the Deep in History Talks from the CHNetwork:
The early period of the growth of Christianity (ca. A.D. 50-700) is a rich source for learning how the earliest disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ passed on the “faith delivered once and for all to God’s holy ones” (Jud 3). From Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century to Gregory the Great in the early seventh, the story of the Church’s proclamation in winning over pagan culture to Christ is widely diverse in practice and wonderfully unified in doctrine. The faith of these early Saints inspires and challenges us to live more deeply in love with Christ and in continuity with our forbearers in Christ.
We hope these resources take you deep into the history of Christ's Church and thereby deeper into Christ. Please visit:
DeepinHistory.com
CHNetwork.org

[@rosarywmd]

They need to play this video at every single RCIA class.

[@barblacy619]

I would add every confirmation prep class and offer it annually in a summary to the parish. Adoration chapels need to be launched in every parish with this video to explain why. This is a powerful explanation of something a few of us actually believe by faith, the few being the Adoration crowd. It was reading the early Church Fathers and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist that brought me back to the Church after wandering in the desert for 35 years.

[@cominghomenetwork]

It's an extremely helpful talk, especially for people exploring the Catholic Faith and looking to understand the Eucharist!

[@thedon978]

I have been a priest for 42 years. In all that time I think I have never heard a more profound explanation of the Gospel of Saint John: Chapter 6. Brilliant. Truthful. Living. Thank you. fr.chas.murr

[@flamingooneleg77]

marc it’s good to hear you had religion for 42 years. How can someone that has been religious get saved.?

[@Bobomulo]

​@JEROME BURNETT 1. Who said everything must be in the scripture? Can you show us where in the Bible it says everything must be in the Bible?

[@joecastillo8798]

@@flamingooneleg77 Benny, It is quite evident by your question that you have no idea of the etimology of the word "religion". The root of the word 'religion is the word 'LIGARE', meaning to 'bind', which defines WHAT BINDS a human being to GOD. Therefore RELIGION is not something negative. It truly implies respect for what is sacred, for God; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of God; a mode of worship. The real question is: Who sets up a particular religion? A self appointed minister? A malinformed zealot full of hatred? OR GOD! If God does it, religion provides the greatest fulfillment available for you and humanity. Jesus Christ, the God-man, founded the Religion of CHRISTIANITY by establishing His Church (Matt.16:18-19) and commanding his apostles to make disciples of all nations, meaning a “Catholic,” or universal, Church. (Matt. 28:18-20) Furthermore: Acts 2:42 affirms the basic religious structure of Christianity, including the “teaching of the apostles,” showing again the divinely ordained leadership of Peter and the other apostles as well as the celebration of “the breaking of the bread,” an early-Church term for the sacrifice of the Mass. St. Paul affirms the RELIGIOUS nature of Christianity when he writes that it is the Church, not the Bible, which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. (1 Timothy 3:15) What or who is the truth? It’s Jesus Christ (John 14:6), A fact that reaffirms the one Church, Jesus built, as the religious pillar and bulwark Jesus established to teach and minister to his people. Finally, you need to know as well as accept that the word RELIGION is used positively in the Bible, as James writes: “Religion that is PURE and undefiled before God the Father, is this: • To care for orphans • To care for widows in their distress • To keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition [RSVCE]). The King James Version, a classic Protestant biblical translation, uses the same word RELIGION in James 1:27. James contrasts worthy religion with worthless religion (James 1:26). St. Paul also uses religion positively in 1 Timothy 3:16, right after affirming the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth”. Other translations use godliness, a synonym for holiness or religion, which in practice encompasses one’s voluntary subjection to God. I hope this update guides your thinking to the Truth and to a more positive understanding of the word "Religion". May God bless your discernment.

[@Kitiwake]

@@flamingooneleg77 don't troll.

[@Kitiwake]

@@joecastillo8798 pearls before swine.

[@jovialmoshahary1556]

All speakers in deep in history always mesmerizes me to understand my faith and live my faith more faithfully. God bless EWTN.

[@GregHohman]

Good grief, how can I express my profound thanks to God for leading me to this! Praise Him as I receive the symbol that Augustine described, thank you Lord for “Late have I loved You, O Beauty ever so ancient and so new! Late have I loved You! And You were within me, and I outside, and because of this I searched for You outside of me. And deformed as I was, I lunged myself over the beautiful things You created. You were with me, yet I was not with You. “. As I wipe away the tear.

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@orysiaearhart6392]

This is a beautiful explanation of the mystery of the Eucharist and very much in line with what I was taught at the Augustine Institute where I received my master's degree in theology. To those who say this is a lie and have difficulty understanding, they are like the people in John who turned away from Christ when he gave the Bread of Life discourse. Peter and the other apostles did not understand either, but they believed because of faith in the true Christ they were following. God gave us the scientific laws to understand our physical universe, but not to analyze and understand His mysteries. For that, we must have faith. Without faith, prayer becomes meaningless. Without faith, eating a body devolves into cannibalism. Without faith, our spiritual lives starve. I know that when I die, I want to be with God. Without faith, there is no God. Without faith, there is no reason to live.

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@Kitiwake]

Well, those of no faith live for pleasure. I know now that is a recipe for unhappiness in this world and perdition in the next.

[@emanuilgerganov5494]

Greetings from Orthodox Bulgaria, really wise words, thank you

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@Kitiwake]

I knew several Bulgarian nationals in Ireland. Good people.

[@user-cd5og8to5p]

Thank you Fr Frank. Listening made me believe like I never believe before what receiving communion really means and receiving the body and the blood Jesus Christ. I feel so much more confident in my faith as a Catholic and my desire to teach my family and anybody I know that faith of Jesus Christ Amen

[@RGTomoenage11]

Main reason I came back to tbe Church is The Eucharist.

[@dr.alanhales544]

roger, .There is no such Biblical thing as the Catholic Eucharist.Jesus tells us what "Eat" in Jn 6 means.Coming to Him. V 35.Believing Him, V 40.Living in Him, And Him living in you, V 56.Otherwise we have no life, V53.It's the Spirit that gives life, V 63, [The new birth]. NOT the erroneous Eucharist.The Greek tense for, "Eat & Drink", in Vs 51--53. Is a, "ONE TIME SINGULAR ACTION".Which means you only do it ONCE, [The ONE time rebirth]. Because you Catholics think Jn 6 is the Un-Biblical Eucharist, then the second-third-fourth time and so-on that you gave it, You are disobeying Jesus. But Catholics know all about them disobeying God.The "One time singular action" doesn't mean once a day or once a week, It means it's done ONE TIME.Forget what your so-called early church fathers say, You HAVE to go by what the Bible and the Greek says.

[@kainosktisis777]

@Dr. Alan Hales So, if I understand you correctly then, I either have to believe your interpretation or Jesus. Let me ask you this, sir: When did we get our Christian Bible - with both the OT & the NT canon? How did we know which books to include in the canon of Scripture? Is that information as binding on all Christians explicitly included within the text of Scripture? How would we know what to believe in the absence of the written word as early believers? Which came first - the Church or the Christian Bible?

[@kainosktisis777]

@Joseph Boyat What is your understanding of this? forums.catholic.com/t/are-all-priests-of-the-sspx-validly-ordained/332128/6

[@johnosumba1980]

Joseph Boyat and you believe that? Can’t you be a shamed of talking on something you know nothing about.

[@flamingooneleg77]

roger really, why didn’t you come back because of Jesus? That way you could of been saved: Or did you just want to be religious?

[@tammyjwhaley]

This is the most eloquent and beautifully succinct articulation of the transcendent and transforming TRUE nature of the holy Eucharist I have ever heard. Thank God for Father Lane. Not an easy thing to do. I'm so thankful I found this.

[@MikeWyattmodel48]

Thanks Tammy I independently came to the same conclusion you articulated. I affirm this wonderful speaker and your words

[@aleee1aleee]

@@MikeWyattmodel48 Z.p

[@nenabunena]

They made the eucharist a symbol because they had no authority to transform it

[@flamingooneleg77]

nenabunena so do they need to get saved?

[@emmanuelogbu8851]

Best comment ever!

[@buddhistjohn]

Long ago I saw the miracle of God making the bread himself and himself bread. He reveals himself in the bread of his body and the wine of his blood. He heals the division of us from him in the incarnation through the spirit and the body of his virgin mother. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls into heaven especially those most in need of thy mercy. Thank you for your clarifying lesson.

[@infestedjonesjonsy5405]

Dear Protestants, This is a Catholic Channel. You are here because you are looking for something and all the questions that you raise here are just affirmations of your doubt. We Welcome you to the Catholic Church

[@dr.alanhales544]

infestedjones jonsy, .Jesus tells us what "Eat" in Jn 6 means.Coming to Him. V 35.Believing Him, V 40.Living in Him, And Him living in you, V 56.Otherwise we have no life, V53.It's the Spirit that gives life, V 63, [The new birth]. NOT the erroneous Eucharist.The Greek tense for, "Eat & Drink", in Vs 51--53. Is a, "ONE TIME SINGULAR ACTION".Which means you only do it ONCE, [The ONE time rebirth]. Because you Catholics think Jn 6 is the Un-Biblical Eucharist, then the second-third-fourth time and so-on that you gave it, You are disobeying Jesus. But Catholics know all about them disobeying God.The "One time singular action" doesn't mean once a day or once a week, It means it's done ONE TIME.Forget what your so-called early church fathers say, You HAVE to go by what the Bible and the Greek says.

[@reuben4yahshua837]

The early church Fathers would have tied pope Frances up and thrown him out. The head of the catholic church is a heretic

[@frankhernandez538]

Yes welcome home my brother

[@stephenmurphy9329]

@@josephboyat-bt1jf another conspiracy theorist that everything after vatican 2 wasnt truly Catholic. Take your tinfoil hat off and do some real research, not just internet trolling.

[@stephenmurphy9329]

@@dr.alanhales544 Really; forget what the early Church fathers said? The Bible was written by Catholics to Catholics and the Church preceeded the bible. Anyone who did not believe in the Real Presence in the first few centuries ( before the books of the new testament were agreed upon by the Catholic bishops) were considered heretics. One final note; Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek

[@nvision26]

"we have made it so abstract that it no longer touches the heart"- THIS is why I am looking at Catholicism from the Reformed tradition .

[@catholicbeth2371]

Keep searching. The Eucharist will drawyou irresistibly, inexorably, back to the Catholic church as the source of the Christian faith.

[@mariocapulong472]

Imagine that and here I am hearing from protestants that catholicism is not cerebral enough, but there you are saying we are abstracting it enough it no longer touches the heart.

[@hawaiifutureproject8518]

I think Jesus left us irresolvable conundrums to keep us humble and always seeking the truth. Its a good thing.

[@thecancelling2870]

I kinda wonder sometimes. I haven't gone near the Sacrament in months since Confession is hard to come by and I am in rough shape spiritually. Iy just seems like John 6 is so explicit and yet has some subtlety. The He lets the Jews in Capernaum decide, do you want to believe in this very hard teaching or reject me? Gospel St. John is filled with lots of symbolism and imagery, but this is different. He says you have to eat His Flesh and drink his Blood, and this after talking about Manna. And St. Paul follows it up also in his epistle to Corinth. I honestly think you are on to something as much as we could ever try to discern God's plan. It's like, enter the mystery

[@joecastillo8798]

@@thecancelling2870 My friend, Remember! We are made of body and soul. Both are important in the unity which forms a human being. We understand bodies corrupt and desintegrate after death; the soul goes before God for its personal judgement by God and lives eternally in the place where it belongs. However, the ones who believed Christ and consumed the Eucharist, their bodies will be "resurrected in the final judgement" and be united to their souls in Heaven. JOHN 6:53-55 53. So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have NO life in you; 54. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has Eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. It is evident Jesus was not expressing something symbolic in those clear and unambiguous "truly, truly" words. May God bless your discernment.

[@JJ-dc7tt]

As a Lutheran pastor I concur with Msgr. Lane in all he says here. And what he says of Luther, that "he was the closest" is also true. Luther confesed the very body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist, but he did so more as a polemical dogmatic propostion than as the organic reality of the holy Christian religion: it is who we are, and what we do; definitional and constitutive of Christian faith and life. I am teaching these things to my Lutheran parish and they are starting to bear fruit, God be praised.

[@bennymier9755]

Beutiful speach I'm currently taking theology classes and to me this is pure gold

[@richardterburg3770]

I wish I could give this more than just a thumbs up.

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@albertpurification985]

Most of the time ,I listen this video .the more I listen ,the more I become powerful in spirit .

[@stephenjackson9034]

A beautiful explanation told without disrespect to the beliefs of those who hold a different view. Of course early educated Christians considered the Platonic view of divinity. It would appear that Saint Patrick had this all encompassing Divine viewpoint when he sung his defense against Druid assassins: "Christ with me, Christ before me Christ behind me; Christ in me Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ when I lie down Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me, Christ in the eye of every man who sees me, Christ in the ear of every man who hears me."

[@martinoneill2253]

amen very good understanding

[@devputh]

The true presence of Jesus in Eucharist. The best I have heard in my 70 year old life

[@alexchristopher221]

I'm surprised Protestants reject the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist but accept the dogma of the Incarnation. Ignatius of Antioch (c.110 AD) suggested in his Letter to the Ephesians, 7 that the Docetists couldn't accept the Eucharist because they rejected the Incarnation of Christ.

[@frankhernandez538]

I agreed , we need to pray for them

[@Gruenders]

It’s because we (I group myself in the “we” category for maybe only the next couple months lol) don’t realize that the OT required the Israelites to eat their sacrifice in order for them to commune with the sacrifice and for the sacrifice to be valid. Likewise, this must occur with Jesus’ sacrifice, which is why Catholics believe in the Real Presence. But that requirement of eating a sacrifice isn’t even on the Protestant’s radar.

[@zxcasdqwe12]

@@Gruenders Interesting. Do you have quotes from scripture to support it?

[@Gruenders]

@@zxcasdqwe12 exodus 12:8 commands them to eat the Passover Lamb. And then in Hebrews 9:20, it is documented that the people had to be covered with the “blood of the covenant” in order to be initiated into the old covenant. Jesus calls the “wine” the “blood of the new covenant.” And so we must partake of this blood to enter into the covenant. And the “initiation blood” is just as real and important as the “sacrificial blood,” since it is the means by which individuals enter the covenant. So we partake of the initiation blood in the new covenant through drinking it and through eating the new lamb’s body, as the Israelites were sprinkled with the old covenant blood and ate the old lamb’s body.

[@zxcasdqwe12]

@@Gruenders Thank you

[@jessiesnider7704]

Beautiful. He is great. I will listen again abd again.

[@edmundjanicki119]

i was very taken by Fathers explanation of way we should under John 6:53. I could never explain it to many who challanged me on it but i understand it in a new way like never before, and it"s something that i have felt but never could express in the right way. it was very enlightning in the way he explained how the people of our LORD understood the Passover as the decendents of the 3 patriarchs. this was an amazing program.

[@timspangler8440]

+Edmund Janicki Do you DRINK at Communion, like Jesus said to do? Or do you choose to disobey?

[@edmundjanicki119]

+Tim Spangler the full presence of our LORD is in both and we don't belive he is one but not other, he is in both at the same time. If you receive one but not the other, your not getting just half of him, your receving him completly in one or the other.

[@sdboyd]

+Tim Spangler It depends on the rite. Some Eastern Catholics use intinction. Regardless, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present in both species. How 'bout you? I guess any matter, form, and dogma is completely irrelevant to you. Just believe that Jesus is God at one point in your life and you're good for eternity. Too bad that nobody believed that nonsense until 1,500 years after Jesus died.

[@timspangler8440]

+S Boyd Do you guys believe in "unbloody" blood? I don't.

[@sdboyd]

+Tim Spangler No. My turn: what was the water that Jesus was referring to in John 3:5.? Something tells me that you are in the amniotic fluid camp.

[@j.b.zippro9830]

Sharp analysis of the meaning of symbol: ' .....We have culturally come to symbol, but not the symbol of the Fathers, but the symbol of an age of reason. And the symbol no longer contains the reality that it signifies..' (28.03-28.22)

[@johnnocera3034]

My story is pretty strange. Until age 18 I was a devout Catholic. I eventually converted, was baptized into the Church of Christ and went to Bible College and seminary and pastored Protestant churches for 39 years. Then one day after retirement, something (Holy Spirit?) said: go back and restudy the Gospels and I Corinthians and study deeply the Apostolic Fathers and early fathers. What I discovered knocked me over...The Catholics were right, especially when it came to the Eucharist. Also, I can personally attest to the fact that most Protestant Churches sadly, do not focus on the reverence of the Lord God. Another fact, more than 50% of the Mass is right out of the Bible! In fact, there is much more Bible reading, quoting and preaching in Catholic churches than many Protestant Churches. Once I took the time to study both the Bible and Church history I had no choice, I repeat, no choice than to revert back to the Catholic Church. Even now, I spend a great deal of time in those Biblical and historical studies. If you are searching, I strongly urge you to study for yourself. Perhaps like me, your "eyes will be opened" as were the disciples' on that road to Emmaus.

[@pakk3490]

thankyou very much indeed... much adored...your explanation really deepened my minds and strengthen my faith....

[@BobBoldt-sp1gr]

Wow. This priest has some serious intellectual firepower. Extremely profound. I especially appreciate how he explains how Luther/Calvon/Zwingler reached the wrog conclusions, not die to ill intent, but instead because they read John 6 with a post-13th century understanding of symbol rather than a 1st-century understanding. We caused the Protestant reformation because our Catholic leaders were too often grave sinners (aren’t we all?). So we should be patient with our Protestant brethren, most of whom are well-intentioned. They would re-connect with Apostolic Christianity if they would just read the early Church fathers (who had a far better understanding of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd century (long before the falsehoods their history-ignorant leaders tell them about Constantine in the 4th century). It’s rather shocking to me how far Protestantism stray from the words of Jesus aand Paul - under the guise of interpretation. One of the great ironies is the insistence on claiming to be “Biblical”. The martyrs and early Church fathers were Biblical too - and would have considered Protestantist beliefs heretical. Want to challenge that? The most efficent way would be yo go to what genius former Protestant scholars describe. Dr. David Anders. Joshua Charles. Scott Hahn. Let he who has the internet see.

[@tradcatholic]

Beautifully taught. Thank you, Father.

[@St_Pablo298]

This is so fantastic. I’ve listened to many homilies and lectures on the Eucharist. This talk on understanding the real presence in the modern age is so critically important.

[@leonardoespiritu1866]

EXCELLENT, MSGR. I ADMIRE MUCH THIS TALK, SO SINCERE, SO TRUE👍☝️👏🙏💗

[@andrewsapia]

That is the first time in this series that I've heard that it should not be attributed to ill will and this is important to protestants that the motives of the reformers not be impugned. Many died, especially the radical reformers rather than recant. When you read their words as they are being drowned for believing in adult baptism or rebaptism. Can you even imagine this today that anyone, in any church, would think it appropriate or "Christ-like" to murder someone for believing in adult baptism or baptism by choice. To many burning people alive and torturing them to get them to recant, even a false belief only reinforced their believe in the depravity of the church hierarchy. Many of the so-called heretics did not even resist but went out singing praises to God. Another thing I hear throughout this series in a kind of minimizing of the actual state of the church just prior to the reformation. It was pretty damn bad. It was certainly not the progressive humane rights non death penalty gracious to all religions (except protestants) that it is today. I am in no way anti-Catholic. In fact I am convinced by a lot of the arguments and have been very disillusioned with the modern evangelical church. At the same time I am open but not convinced. I attended a parish for a while and I was surprised at just how scriptural things were and liked a lot of things but did not feel at home. I dunno, I didn't expect to be buddy's with everyone right away but after 6 months I hadn't made a single friend. This would not be the case at a protestant church of any denomination that you would go for 6 months and hardly meet a person. I know what Catholics say, it is not a club, and your go for the mass and to worship god, but come on, this is not a good way to be. I remain open and do really want the truth.

[@tabandken8562]

andrew sapia Then read writings by the Saints of the Counter Reformtion. Read "Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church. It's only 100 years old, but he writes about that period of time when the Catholics are accused of all the wrong and look up the documents those people wrote that he references. And then there is a book by a Jew who digs for the REAL Truth regarding the inquisition. H reveals many misconceptions spoken of about the Church, and he's Jewish. About as unbiased as can be. I forget his name though. Shouldn't be hard to find if you really want the truth.

[@robertlehnert4148]

@@tabandken8562 I believe you are referring to Dr. Henry Kamen and his _The Spanish Inquisition, a Historical Revision, 2nd edition_ HOWEVER, Dr. Kamen is not Jewish heritage, rather he is of South Central Asia (India) but he is Secularist, hence not pro Catholic biased still stands.

[@duantorruellas716]

There's a fine line between magick and spiritual symbolism. When we move away from a spiritual mind set and embrace a literal mind set , we cannot see the spiritual mysteries of the scriptures. We need to see the connect between the concept behind the eucharist and the verse that says , man cannot live on bread alone , but every word out of the mouth of God. This speaks to the spiritual life and the physical life that must be one in us , this is the mystery of Christ in us as the living God. --- Duan T.🌟

[@teresalorelpurification1197]

High level theology and philosophy

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@teresalorelpurification1197]

I love it,it is important to speak in different media even in every channel of all TV

[@SuperIliad]

I hardly doubt Msgr. Lane's ability to synopsize the Summa on the head of a pin. Well done!

[@raykaelin]

Msgr...thanks for the teaching.

[@cynthiabowkett4082]

Oh how beautiful you speak, as a Irish Roman Catholic it is the very first time anyone has explained that God is within us. Jesus made clear how he hated the SARIFICE of the spilling of blood. I believe that at The last Supper it was in memory of the time and life of Jesus spent together with HIS Apostle. It was said that they all ate together in their homes, they broke bread, drank wine. This became to be in respect of the sacrifice of The life of Jesus. It was so simple at the Last Supper Jesus past around the bread & wine Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" I believed it was a beautiful spiritual part of Jesus entering us. However, in Hebrews it states "once and for all" thank you for your excellent speak.

[@albertpurification985]

The devision of Christianity is the only reason.Who think that Eucharist is symbol they are wrong .it is the living being of God .My little experience is that there is no life without Eucharist .Knowing ,studying ,devotion ,prayer can develop our mind but to live with Christ closely ,there is no any alternative of Eucharist .I feel it .

[@albertpurification985]

I will never miss the Eucharist because I feel it completely

[@aldousjove]

Pure Gold

[@ASHICOZ]

Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory, Of His Flesh, the mystery sing; Of the Blood, all price exceeding,

[@JamesVaughnOFS]

Br. James, OFS. Powerful talk. Reminds me of our late novice master who taught in the manner like our teacher in this podcast

[@bthongni55]

This is a godsend explanation

[@tominrichmond]

With all due respect, I think Father, in his discussion of symbol (except when discussing the actual Eucharist), comes very close to the conflation of nature and supernature, which is the hallmark of modernism and immanentism, and obviates the need for grace. I think the solution to the problem of our Protestant understanding of the Blessed Sacrament is a return to the realism of St. Thomas, who had a grasp on the mystery of the Eucharist, without slipping into the mere rationalism of the Enlightenment. His explanation of the Blessed Sacrament seemed satisfactory to the Church, which adopted it quite formally, even dogmatically, until the past 50 years. Not a bad 700 year run, and one which saw a liturgical flourishing which is clearly the opposite of the sterile rationalism of the post-conciliar era, which Father rightly calls out in this interesting talk.

[@flamingooneleg77]

Tom McKenna so what your saying is that he needs to get saved.

[@joecastillo8798]

@@flamingooneleg77 Lol. Good question! However, I did not see a response.

[@joecastillo8798]

@Michel Martinez Michel, Any protestant who believes in "sola scriptura", contradicts the same doctrine which is absent in the Bible. So, you have a decision to make: #1 The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. #2 The Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth. What's your choice?

[@flamingooneleg77]

@Michel Martinez That's what I get for down grading. I agree with you about the giants, and they were around after the flood too. Keep up the good work.

[@paulmiller3469]

Quite a good video. Thanks, Coming Home Network.

[@albertpurification985]

Thank you father .Amen

[@johnbirman5840]

And so we have a God, a True God, Who loves us, who is “madly in Love with each one of us” Not far away but close. “I pray that you will be One with me, as I am One with the Father” - Holy. Is there anyone else in the world that expresses “this” in words other than Msg Lane? I’m sure there are, but......

[@Leila-Grandemange]

As a Protestant praying about becoming Catholic, this is the first explanation of the mystery of the Eucharist that shed light for me into why Catholics believe the way they do. But what confuses me is if you, as Catholics, believe you are receiving the “actual” presence of the Lord when partaking in the Eucharist, then does it follow that if you miss a week or however long of taking the Eucharist you believe Christ is no longer in you? For me (my understanding) Christ is always with me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which we receive when we believe and receive him as our Savior and Lord. We take communion in “remembrance”… as the Priest explained here. Don’t Catholics also believe Christ is always present with them through the Holy Spirit? Thank you for sharing.

[@mungzou6135]

God bless you fr

[@dannyd8181]

Good Job Father :)

[@ralphjones5939]

Yes, Wesley had an insight into the the father's in the faith he quoted also Origen saying "these were the nearest to the fountain" these apostles were taught by the disciples and Jesus, they understood what Jesus was trying to teach to the Jews. We can read the bible veiled or read with eyes to see and ears to hear. Two thousand years later and look where the church is compared to the first three hundred years. God is a God or restoration and what once was will be again. The bible is symbolic, every thing in the bible is a type and shadow. The apostolic teaching is what we have to have, the revelation of Jesus Christ is being taught again (Christ means anointed teaching) the book of revelation shows us how to get back to the garden we need to understand the Hebrew mindset Jesus said "go back to your first love" Rev 2:4. The early church fathers died for the truth and today we're mostly told to say a prayer and we're good to go this is why in the book of Revelation it says "do away with the outer court" again every thing in the bible is to be understood spiritually and this can only be taught by the holy spirit through an apostle and this is where the button gets pressed. The good news is get yourself ready because don't you know your the tabernacle. God dwells in his tabernacle but not with two seeds Matt 13: 24-30. The greatest trick the devil played was he convinced the world he doesn't exist. You can read this and say what ever you want or Rev 12 will happen, "a war broke out in heaven" this is the war in your mind that will take place, when you finish reading this remember the parable of the sower.

[@teresalorelpurification1197]

It is the most of the most

[@ddzl6209]

Living saint Augustine of Hippo l am stunned!!

[@davidlloyd1750]

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[@robertlehnert4148]

I notice some of the Real Presence deniers do the old false conflation of the Real Presence of the Eucharist with the dogma of Transubstantion. While intimately related they are NOT the same. BTW the origins of the clarifying doctrine of Transubstantion has it's roots at least in the 4th century, though it was not called by that technical term back then .So, the Real Presence goes to Jesus and the Apostles and then to the ECFs.

[@jahamgeershaik8749]

If I speak minds, I listen to others. Can others stop listening

[@aldousjove]

We call the Sacraments signs which signify and contain Grace. It appears that Fr. Lane use symbol as sign, and sign as a mere material object devoid of the capacity to contain Grace. Should we called them symbols rather? for they contain what they mean? Im a bit confuse with the use. Splendid speech though.

[@umpanabocollege-osaa9502]

EUCHARIST IS THE LIFE ITSELF...

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@jamessheffield4173]

God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.” Marburg, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli by Rev. Stephen Preus

[@Selahsmum]

I think it is sad that the Eucharist is a point of division amongst Christians. We protestants are certainly in part to blame, but I think our catholic friends have to own up to their part in the division as well. Part of the reason that the reformers were so adamant about the eucharist not being the litetal body and blood of Christ os becahse in the medievil church, a bad theology had developed that scared people away from ever taking the eucharist. There was a superstituous understanding that you had to be a super holy, perfected person to take it and very few participated regularly as a result. And so the reformers wer actually trying to encourage more people to partake in communion and thus the insistance that it was symbolic, and not going to strike you dead if you were not a fully perfect person (bec this side of eternity there is no such thing). The more radical reformers went too far in denying Christs presende at all, but the lutherans, anglicans, and many more conservative reform churches like the one i ama part of say Christ IS present in the bread and wine. The exact understanding of what that means on a molecular level might differ but there is still belief in his presense.

[@stephenalderete9379]

Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words. Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” -Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

[@p.turtle2085]

The very unfortunate part is that the "reformers" did not think their theology through to its ultimate end. Once separated from the "root", ie., the catholic church, they were also separated from apostolic succession. The priesthood was tossed out and deemed unnecessary, and with it, the consecration on the altar. I would say that this is evidence enough that some(if not all) of the early reformers had lost the belief in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist prior to their separation from the roman catholic church. How could they not see that their separation from the church also meant separation from the reality of the eucharistic mystery? Authentic reform and renewal can only occur within the Church.

[@Livenow11484]

But look at what Jesus said immediately after talking about His Body and Blood: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

[@NickFromDetroit]

This is because Christ is answering the objections of His disciples by differentiating between his mortal, human, physical body (which will be killed the next year,) and His resurrected, miraculous, spiritual body that He was talking about in vv. 51-57. (See more on the difference between the natural, corruptible body & the spiritual, incorruptible body in 1Cor.15:44-56.) This is why He repeatedly compares Himself to the miraculous manna from Heaven, and why He asked them right before (v.62) if they will believe when they see the future Ascension of His Resurrected body? Christ is explaining to them that they're viewing His teaching with too earthly a mindset, instead of a heavenly one. Which is how many today, who reject His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, do. The first one to reject Christ's command to eat His body & blood was Judas Iscariot, as the last verses of chapter 6 attest (vv.70-71). This worldly view is also why John 6 begins with Christ admonishing the crowds of 5,000, who were fed with 2 fish & 5 loaves, for wanting to make Him a king, not because of the miraculous sign that was done on their behalf, but because He could fill their bellies (vv.15, 26). They are no different than the Exodus generation who complained even though the Father fed them with miraculous bread/manna and Heavenly quail in the desert for 40 years. God Bless!

[@simonewilliams7224]

But Jesus is with us when He is taken in the Eucharist during every Mass everywhere in the world. What is not literal in that. John 6:35, John 6:53-58.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Jesus breadthed on the disciples and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained." I have the Holy Ghost and I have the right (nay, the responsibility) to forgive those who trespass against me. For if I do not forgive those who trespass against me then God is under no obligation to forgive my my trespasses. Forgiveness of sin is not limited to the apostles and it never was. John's Jesus didn't give them the Great Commission like we see in Matthew and Mark. Instead, He told them to forgive the sins of all the whosoevers of the world. It's actually the same commission if you think about it.

[@adelaidamaguin3243]

If you say it is done for once only Why would Jesus say do this in memory of me and this wase done by early fathers who lived with taught and influenced by them .

[@randyw.8781]

John 6:53 was not a communion with His disciples as in the last supper. It was about coming to Him and believing in Him for salvation. Jesus had fed the 5000 and they followed Him for food. They asked Him for a sign and stated Moses gave them bread to eat. Jesus pointed out it was God who gave them bread not Moses. And that He was the living bread that came down from heaven which one would eat and not be hungry again. Just as He pointed out to the lady at the well the living water Jesus would give her if she asked Him The Fathers promise - Christ in us. Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11“Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” 13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty

[@joecastillo8798]

@Randy W Randy, Believing in Jesus means you're supposed to trust and believe what He clearly tells you: JOHN 6, 53-58 53. Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 55. For MY FLESH is REAL FOOD and my BLOOD is REAL DRINK. 56. Whoever EATS my flesh and DRINKS my blood lives in me and I live in that person. 57. As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. 58. This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread WILL LIVE FOR EVER. DO YOU BELIEVE JESUS TESTIMONIES? Jesus founded only ONE CHURCH, The Catholic Church, His Body, in order to continue His work of salvation through them by teaching humanity and by feeding them of His Eucharist to have ETERNAL LIFE. JESUS TELLS YOU THAT READING SCRIPTURE IS NOT ENOUGH: JOHN 5:39-40 "You search the Scriptures because YOU THINK that in them you have eternal life; it is these that TESTIFY about Me; ¿HOW DO WE KNOW THE BREAD IS HIS BODY AND THE WINE IS HIS BLOOD AFTER THE CONSECRATION AT EACH MASS? ●FIRST TESTIMONY: MARK 14:22-24 While they were eating, He TOOK some BREAD, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; THIS IS MY BODY." And when He had taken a CUP and given thanks, He gave it to them, and THEY all DRANK from it. And He said to them, "THIS IS MY BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many. So, you must believe every word! ●SECOND TESTIMONY: LUKE 22:19-20 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. So, you must believe every word! ●THIRD TESTIMONY 》1 CORINTHIANS 10:16-17 Is not the CUP of blessing which we bless a sharing in the BLOOD of CHRIST? 》Is not the BREAD which we break a sharing in the BODY of CHRIST? Since there is ONE BREAD, we who are many are ONE BODY; for we all partake of the ONE BREAD. So, you must believe every word! ●FOURTH TESTIMONY RECONGNIZING JESUS AT THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD! LUKE 24:14-35 14 and they were talking together about all that had happened. 15 And it happened that as they were talking together and discussing it, Jesus himself came up and walked by their side; 16 but THEIR EYES WERE PREVENTED from recognising him. 17 He said to them, 'What are all these things that you are discussing as you walk along?' They stopped, their faces downcast. 18 Then one of them, called Cleopas, answered him, 'You must be the only person staying in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have been happening there these last few days.' 19 He asked, 'What things?' They answered, 'All about Jesus of Nazareth, who showed himself a prophet powerful in action and speech before God and the whole people; 20 and how our chief priests and our leaders handed him over to be sentenced to death, and had him crucified. 21 Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free. And this is not all: two whole days have now gone by since it all happened; 22 and some women from our group have astounded us: they went to the tomb in the early morning, 23 and when they could not find the body, they came back to tell us they had seen a vision of angels who declared he was alive. 24 Some of our friends went to the tomb and found everything exactly as the women had reported, but of him they saw nothing.' 25 Then he said to them, 'You foolish men! So slow to believe all that the prophets have said! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer before entering into his glory?' 27 Then, starting with Moses and going through all the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that were about himself. 28 When they drew near to the village to which they were going, he made as if to go on; 29 but they pressed him to stay with them saying, 'It is nearly evening, and the day is almost over.' So he went in to stay with them. 30 Now while he was with them at table, HE TOOK THE BREAD and SAID THE BLESSING; then he BROKE IT and HANDED it TO THEM. 31 And THEIR EYES WERE OPENED and THEY RECOGNIZED HIM; but he had vanished from their sight. 32 Then they said to each other, 'Did not our hearts burn within us as he talked to us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?' 33 They set out that instant and returned to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven assembled together with their companions, 34 who said to them, 'The Lord has indeed risen and has appeared to Simon.' 35 Then they told their story of what had happened on the road and how THEY had RECOGNIZED HIM AT THE BREAKING OF BREAD. So, you must believe every word, just like the apostolic successors believed and practiced inspired by their predecessors? FORTY years beyond Paul's writings, St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, disciple of John, writes in 107 A D.: #1 CH. 7 of his letter to the church at Smyrna: "They abstain from the EUCHARIST and from prayer, because they CONFESS NOT the EUCHARIST to be the FLESH OF our Saviour JESUS CHRIST, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again". #2 CH 8 of his letter to the church at Smyrna: "Let that be deemed a PROPER EUCHARIST, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..." I ASK: Do you still doubt and reject Jesus'own words, believed by his Church for 1986 years? Do you doubt that his Apostles and successors believe the same teaching regarding The Eucharist as the Body and Blood of our Lord? God bless.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

im a catholic and i still dont get it

[@luigjperkaj6325]

Who can explain this "Abraham's life was in his descendants." Referring to this verse "My father was a Wandering aramean in the desert." Deutoronomy26:6 This verse refers to Jacob.

[@iiiwideopen]

John 6:63 "The spirit is the life giver; the flesh is of no value: the words which I have said to you are spirit and they are life" why not just look in the Bible. Those that stuck around and sought an answer got one from Jesus. Jesus clarified it himself. And as,far as incorporating Greek thought to understand scripture? That has led to a multitude of heresy by well meaning people.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

If you are trying to imply flesh has no value, rather than what Jesus is saying about earthly ways of thinking rather than God's way of thinking, how do you square this denial of the value of flesh with Jesus' death on the cross? If He did not die, or if his flesh dying had no value, you are not saved, any more than the Jews who crucified him or the Jews before him. Jesus did clarify himself later: Matthew 26:26, holding the unleavened bread of the Passover Sacrifice, "THIS IS my body." If you read the whole gospel in the half-light of one misunderstood passage, you make MANY words of Jesus useless

[@iiiwideopen]

ArchetypeGotoh Of coarse I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus body on the cross is of utmost value. It was the largest price ever paid for anything. It was the largest price possible to pay. But by ignoring what Jesus says in John 6:63 we lose the context of the immediate passage. And it agrees with other parts of scripture when we include it i.e. "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Jesus spoke this way throughout the Gospel of John and every time the individual that Jesus was speaking with took it literal it became clear that they did not understand. Yet none of the other examples do any Christians take literal now days exempt this one. Here are a just few that I know you are familiar with. How come people don't bless water and say I just drank the Holy Spirit? Joh 4:31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. Joh 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Joh 4:33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Joh 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? Joh 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body. Joh 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. Joh 4:8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Joh 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. Joh 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Joh 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not,..... No one every has made the argument that any of the old testament symbols for the sacrifice of Jesus ever became the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. Even the lamb. And then there is this stuff that when the church fathers said symbol that didn't really mean symbol. then to words lose there meaning altogether?

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

That "no one ever made the argument that any old testament symbol for the sacrifice of Jesus ever became the literal flesh and blood of Jesus" is only true if you grant that Jesus had not been incarnated yet. If you mean to say that after the Incarnation no one else argued for the literal presence of Jesus, that is just blatantly a lie. The Immediate context of the passage was a call to faith, because in the section just before this discourse, the same Jews ate the food Jesus multiplied for the 5000 until it was finished, and they were only looking for more food. Jesus scolds them for looking for thinking with their stomach instead of seeing God's providence with the eyes of faith. Notice also, he never says "MY flesh is of no avail", he says "the flesh", using the exact same words St Paul uses in Romans 13:14 as the source of evil and corruption. Jesus' flesh is that of the God-Man, the perfect man without sin. He is not the corruption of the world leading to sin, which is why he gives us His Flesh to eat as spiritual food, and not merely more multiplied bread. The Church Fathers saying "symbol" was explained wonderfully by this very video. They didn't mean "some dead sign pointing to some ancient event", but they did mean "symbol which contains and IS what it points to." the Living Water from the Samaritan Woman Passage is not what Jesus said he IS, but what he promised to GIVE, ie the Holy Spirit and the gifts of faith, hope, and charity given to us at our Baptism. Don't confuse these passages; they both refer to gifts Jesus gives: his own Spirit AND his own body and blood, respectively.

[@bachskil]

Also John 6:53- "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him...." To clarify, the verse you cite as an answer to those who stuck around was spoken between two statements of people leaving Jesus. Those who stuck around simply said, "you have the words of life" It would seem the straightforward reading would be, the bread and the wine is the flesh and blood of Jesus.

[@row1landr]

@@iiiwideopen man shall not live on bread alone, but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God...... ☆☆☆ In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.....................................................And the WORD became flesh and dwelt amongst us! ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

[@cloudskipper40]

My flesh is TRUE food my blood is TRUE drink. but oh noooo Jesus was only speaking symbolically here according to thefundamentalists. They obviously don't know Greek.

[@RachelGerrard]

+Faith In Silver so why are you not literally eating the Lord's flesh then? Even the way you do it is not literal as His physical body doesn't exist anymore

[@cloudskipper40]

Rachel Gerrard I do literally eat his flesh and drink his blood which is truly present under the guise of bread and wine. His physical body does exist. ....have you forgotten that he ascended into heaven after his resurrection?

[@johnbecknell1]

+Rachel Gerrard Christ is not merely present "physically" in the sacrament of the Eucharist. If that were so, then frankly, His body wouldn't fit the size of a piece of unleavened bread. Instead, He is truly and entirely present. So at the Last Supper, Christ didn't declare that, "this is part of My Body". As the person of Christ, He is wholly and substantially present there. The Church avoids the use of the word physical because the meaning is not entirely clear or accurate. While we might say 'physically' present, and understand it to mean that Christ is 'really' present, the word can mean Christ is only present in a way that other physical objects are. And since the physical size of a piece of bread is small, it may be mistakenly understood to mean that Christ is only partially present in the Eucharist. But because Christ is God, He can in a mystical and mysterious way, make Himself entirely present in every host, and every particle of that host. That is why He multiplied the loaves and fishes to abundantly feed the five thousand in John's Gospel just prior to revealing the mystery of the Eucharist. He was conveying to the disciples and to the multitude an abundance despite the physical limitations. Christ therefore, is not bound by those physical limitations. And now Christ is the Living Bread which comes down from Heaven to be received by all to give abundant life. Does that make sense? It is much greater than being merely physically present because the entire Person of Christ is truly and really present in the host when we receive Him at Mass in the Divine Sacrament. Just as Christ gave Himself entirely to us on the cross (we don't just say Christ's physical body only died on the cross--we say that Christ Himself died on it), He gives Himself entirely to us once again in the Holy Eucharist.

[@johnbecknell1]

+Rachel Gerrard Also, when Christ said at the Last Supper, "this is my body," what do you suppose He really meant? As the meaning of Scripture is supposedly perspicuous (or obvious), it would seem that this verse should qualify--but for non-Catholics, it doesn't seem to. He didn't say this symbolizes or represents My Body. He even said that it was the same body and blood that would be offered up to the Father. And in 1 Cor 11:27, it says: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." Why would you be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ if what you were meant to receive was merely a symbol? In the Gospel of John when the crowd of followers replied, "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?"--Jesus actually changes the word meaning simply "to eat", to one that means 'devour' or 'masticate' when He says for the second time, "amen, amen I say to you, unless you [eat] the flesh of the Son of Man... you have no life in you." He didn't give them another way to understand what He said to them, because He sharpened the meaning to one they couldn't mistake. He meant to eat--to even devour His flesh. That's why they all walked away. Now imagine if I were at a dinner party with some of my best friends having just come back from a trip in Paris. One of my friends turns to me and asks, "How was your trip?" And I say, "it was great. Almost as fun as taking advantage of your young daughter." (Now please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to compare what Christ said to a gravely evil act, but I am trying to compare the reactions of those around Christ to the reaction I might get at dinner with guests if I said something like this.) After my friend is left dumbfounded at my response, I say again to him, even sharpening my response, "it was almost as fun as it would be raping your young daughter." Everyone gets up to leave out of disgust from what I said. Then, as everyone is leaving, I yell at them as they're walking out the door, "hold on! I only meant it symbolically! I just was trying to say that I had a really great time in Paris!" Here's the question that I have with the above scenario in mind: would anybody care about what I really meant after using such despicable language? Even if I meant it "symbolically"? Because except for the sin implied in my above example, that's what non-Catholics would want you to believe about Christ's discourse in John 6. When Christ said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, you only need to read Deuteronomy or the writings of the Mishnah or Talmud to see the prohibitions against pagan rituals and blood offerings. They consider these things entirely despicable. So when Christ said that this is exactly what you MUST do with Him, their reaction to Him was palpable--they were aghast by it. But again, what He said isn't sin, because it's true--with Him the ritual is not pagan, because He is the True God giving His true Body for all to have abundant life. Therefore the only way left to understand His words in John is in a literal sense. He did not provide room for anything else. When Christ said to His remaining disciples that these words were, "spirit and life" in John 6:63 then, it wasn't to nullify the words He just uttered by trying to consign to them a merely symbolic meaning. That, you can see with the above example, would be absurd. He said these words in verse 63 to calm the nerves of the twelve who He knew would be just as shaken as the others were, but stayed. So when He said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, Catholics merely take Him at His Word. So did the entire early Church and early Church fathers. Read the 7 epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, written circa AD 105 for an example of this. He was a disciple of John the Apostle. And who better to understand the meaning of John 6 than the one whom John himself discipled? This is what Ignatius wrote going to his martyrdom in Rome: 'Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6, written in AD 110. This again, is John's disciple. He wrote this roughly ten years after John's death. He also wrote this as the bishop of Antioch under the escort of Roman soldiers traveling back to Rome to face execution in the Colloseum. Now would not be the time for tall tales regarding the truths of Christ that John taught him. Jesus meant what He said, when He said, "This is My Body". Again I hope I haven't offended anyone by the above example. God bless.

[@tami7862]

John Becknell I love the comparison to your trip to the Eucharist. I am converting to Catholicism, and I have been on a spiritual journey sunce my previous religion Episcopal decided it wanted to be an all-inclusive church instead of one that upheld any teachings. Admittedly, the services (Mass) are very similar so it wasn't a haes conversion to me, but I took my time and studied. I have had to learn to seperate the problems with the Church and the joy I receive going to Mass, hearing Bible verses, and participating in the Lord's Supper. That is what makes my Church experience comforting.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” - Newman ::Newman goes deep in history:: ::Creates development hypothesis:: Lol

[@chissstardestroyer]

He's speaking falsely; life *does* go away when anyone dies *physically; for physical death IS death, so thus God is dead Because He has Died*... yet He rose again, but remember, those Christ Jesus cited *are* dead *because they died*.

[@keithangel8312]

God Bless you Roman Catholics, it's a remembrance of what our Lord did....please read 1 Corinthians 11 Also, please read all of John 6, Jesus says in John 6:63 - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

[@angelalonsozana955]

What Jesus meant in that discussion with the Jews that they would not accept, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus himself, is the Institution of the New Covenant that Jesus recreated in the Last Supper. In the Old Covenant the Lord instituted this Salvation of his people the Hebrews in Egypt by commanding Moses and all his people to slay a lamb, paint their doorposts with the blood of the lamb and cook and eat the meat in haste because the angel of the Lord will come to slay all the first born of the land, man and animals, save the family whoose blood of the lamb is painted on the doorposts that signifies God's people. That was the faith and ritual that God instituted in the Old and that feast was yearly made by Israelites, the Jews until that moment when Jesus recreated this ritual because He is now the New Covenant, the True Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And in that night at the Last Supper, Jesus said holding the bread, "This is my body which will be given up for you." And every disciple ate. Then Jesus said, "This is my cup of my blood, the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant, which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me." And everyone drink of the cup of wine. So you see, the Flesh and Blood Jesus was talking about is really His own body and blood in the sacrament of communion. And it's no cannibalistic flesh and blood, but the true flesh and blood of Jesus thru the sacramental elements bread and wine in the memory of His sacrificial body on the cross and the blood He shed for remission our sins. No mystical conversion of bread and wine into real flesh and blood into repeated sacrificial ritual again and again because what Jesus has done in the cross was enough for the Father to forgive the sins of mankind from the past present and future, once and for all, and Jesus said "Tetelestai! - It is finished!". Salvation was made, all we need is Faith in Jesus work of salvation on the cross and we shall all be saved. And now as a community of believers in Jesus Christ, we remember this Good News all the time by celebrating the Communion or Breaking of Bread and Drinking of the Wine to commemorate Jesus wonderful work of Salvation for us.

[@Mine-zt5cb]

Your analysis is very flawed ! So Christ Jesus by instituting the New Covenant through his recreation of the Last Supper ordered His disciples not to do that in memory of Him? Why are you ignoring the fact that He commanded His disciples to do exactly what He was doing in memory of Him?

[@angelalonsozana955]

@@Mine-zt5cb First of all, it is not mentioned in the scriptures that the bread becomes real flesh and real blood of Jesus, though he said this is my body and my blood, because of course they will spit it if it's a raw flesh and moreover the blood must not be eaten but to be poured on earth as commanded by God in the beginning. And If you believe that the bread really becomes the body of Jesus, and the blood is really the blood of Jesus that you eat and drink, then you must do that process in only one time, that will be enough for anyone to receive Jesus. But if you do this as a ritualistic process, sacrificing the actual body and blood of Jesus, then you are forfeiting the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Because God needs to sacrifice His Son Jesus on the cross only once, and that was enough to satisfy the Father and appease his wrath because Jesus is the only Blameless, Sinless Lamb worthy and acceptable to the Father. If you sacrifice the body and blood of Jesus again and again till the end of time, then you do not believe the Salvation of Jesus on the cross. Jesus said do this in memory of me, meaning eat of the this bread and drink the cup which He said it is his body and blood to be shared as a community, in unity as one body and blood with Jesus Christ. Jesus said: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life." John 6:63

[@briancaldwell283]

I believe Jesus was talking spiritually, not literally. If you eat the bread and drink the wine with Jesus' sacrifice in your heart you got His message. I serve the chalice and use the term "Blood of Christ". To me it means "Jesus died for you". Nothing to do with actual body and blood of Jesus. He rose from the dead went to Heaven and left us with the Holy Spirit. The Body and Blood of Christ in the rite is the reassurance of the of the Holy Spirit. Praise be to God.

[@lukewagner8871]

The word mystery in the New Testament almost exclusively refers to the mystery of God. Colossians 1:25-27 KJVS [25] Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; [26] Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: [27] To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: One needs to understand that the people that lived during the early days of the gospel viewed themselves as a part of the sacrifices they made. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 KJVS [14] For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: [15] And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. John 6:56 KJVS [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. So Christians not only partake of the body and blood of Christ in a symbolic sense but in a real sense. The offering of his blood is for past sins when we are baptized into his death, Ro 3:25, since Jesus is our sin sacrifice. Romans 6:3-6 KJVS [3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. And the sin nature in us is destroyed thru the offering of his body by partaking of the sufferings of Christ. Hebrews 10:10 KJVS [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 1 Peter 4:1-2,12-13 KJVS [1] Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; [2] That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. [12] Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: [13] But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

[@jetsonjose]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqLXe6V-aZilndE

[@jasonc0065]

John 3:16 literally says that easy belief saves. John 6:53 literally says that cannibalism saves. They can't both be literally true. I go by John 3:16, because it is clear, and you call God a liar. Christ's blood does not flow in our veins. The very idea of being saved by Abraham is refuted by Jesus. We do not participate in the being of God. That idea is pantheism and is contrary to monotheism.

[@glennlanham6309]

Christ said both that you have to believe in Him AND eat His flesh and blood, there is no contradiction, you are inventing this...

[@titicoqui]

if we need pagan plato 's and pagan aristotle's abstract mumbo jumbo to understand Jesus we are in trouble

[@CatholicismRules]

Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies were rampant. That was the context of the time, so of course Jesus would speak with what was colloquial. But no, we don't *need* them. There are plenty of proofs.

[@Gruenders]

Bro. What. It’s the mindset of the people who Jesus was talking to. Do you think he was talking to the modern American evangelical man 2,000 years ago instead of the people he was with? I don’t think so.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

That's a lot of flowery language. How about this? Read what the bible says about it, believe it, and then do it. It doesn't take an hour of holy introspection all it requires is faith. If you believe it, then that's what it is. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If it's in the word of God and you don't believe it then to you it is sin. If you believe something that is not in the word of God then you don't have faith, you have a fable. If it's in the word of God and you believe it then that is life. It's not a spooky formula. it's just faith.

[@koppite9600]

You describe a student who copied his tests and when asked to explain the questions they fail.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@koppite9600 - Everybody starts someplace. If all you've got is rote memorization then use it. How many times did I read the Book of Romans before I appreciated the doctrine of justification by faith? I'm here to tell you that I know PREACHERS, TEACHERS, PASTORS, and EVANGELISTS who don't appreciate that doctrine. Does that mean they're going to hell or that they are of no use to the King? No. It just means they haven't gotten it yet. I've talked to probably upwards of a hundred people who try to reconcile James 2's claim that a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone. They close their eyes and spout the company line: "There is no contradiction there." When there obviously is. I don't know how a person can hold two diametrically opposed beliefs in his head and still be sane. I had to choose one side or the other. Does that make me better than them? No. It just makes me absolutely sure, which side my bread is buttered on.

[@koppite9600]

@@GizmoFromPizmo I'll not oppose your view. In Acts 15 there's a debate on circumcision. After the council resolves the matter it becomes disobedience to teach Gentiles they need to be circumcised or they miss salvation. Same here, until the church sits and dismisses your view, I think you can hold it, I think you have good faith. But the church already met and finished this debate in Trent, they decided against your view. For me, The Catholic church was promised to prevail against the gates of Hades... I follow and listen to the Church. Your problem is you are not in the Church, you have no protection of infallibility and you can teach grave error. So, come into the church and listen. Let the clergy handle tough doctrines as Jesus tasked them.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@koppite9600 - Look at the blood-soaked history of that abominable monster. Jesus wasn't giving His church carte blanche to say or do anything and it would be okay. That is 100% inconsistent with everything God taught us about Himself heretofore. In fact, the New Testament calls that "licentiousness". But carte blanche is exactly how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted. No. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter used those keys to open the kingdom to the Jew first (Acts 2) and also to the Greek (Acts 10). Once opened, those keys are no longer necessary. If the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against a thing then we can be sure that it is NOT the church of Christ. Now, look at the bloody mess the Catholic Church is. If the gates of hell have not prevailed against that thing then there is no hell at all. It is the most deceptive, vile, violent, political hoax the world has ever produced. And it's all in the name of God. I know the New Testament. I know a LOT of Catholics. I was educated by Franciscans. I know Catholicism. Catholicism is NOT Christianity. Oh, the names are there. Some of the places are there. But you can't just change a label and make everything okay. That's NOT okay. It may sound strange but to be a follower, you have to follow. Read the New Testament and then look at yourself in the mirror and say, "The Catholic Church is following the teachings of Christ and the Apostles." If you're an honest person, you'll break out in laughter. Catholicism ≠ Christianity

[@mikedavis435]

Oh my read the whole chapter. Not one verse . Your whole story falls apart when Jesus said. John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life. The official formally teaching transubstantiation was 1215 AD. The failure of the Catholic Church Is not looking from a Jewish perspective.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

You're the one reading one verse, silly goose!

[@koppite9600]

@@danvankouwenberg7234 he reads for himself while we imbibe on the understanding passed down to us.

[@jimmyyoung54]

If you look 10 verses down, doesn't Jesus explain it is spiritual with "63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life. "?

[@tabandken8562]

Jimmy Young Spiritual doesn't mean symbolic. Jesus was trying to say that His teaching is beyond human understanding. It's Spiritual.

[@charlessnarls3902]

Correction; the first Commandment was against eating blood, not Idolatry. "God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth...Every living creature will be food for you; just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you all things. But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it". Genesis 9:1-4 Eating blood is the least Jewish thing Jesus could have done. Please fix this on your next video.

[@frankhernandez538]

You forget to mention the new testament

[@Hammett175]

Sincere sounding gobbledygook. I know less about this subject than before I watched it. Very much the type of nonsense we get from the post Vatican II Church.

[@WujekObamy]

All I got from this is that Plato is the father of Catholic Church. It was better to ask Holly Spirit for interpretation of the Scriptures then pogan philosophers... Now something from Tertulian: “He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing - meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. ” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

[@rlburton]

Catholics agree that the Eucharist is a symbol, but strongly disagree that it is ONLY a symbol. A Sacrament is a divine sign that makes truly present that which it signifies.

[@davidlloyd1750]

I love how he read from the 10 Commandments, the catholic church changed the commandments, the second commandment is missing, thou shalt not make unto me any graven image either in Heaven, on the Earth, or in the sea, and making Mary an idol, Jesus Mothe,r queen of Heaven, there is only one God, and one King of Heaven.

[@davidlloyd1750]

@@wengransusa4232 Even since the days of the Apostles, you had wolfs coming in wearing sheep clothing, and any place more so than in the Catholic Church, who burned people at the stake for wanting to print the Bible, and people like Martin Luther who spoke out against Bible untruths, you Catholics love your religion more than you love Christ, I say, return to your first love

[@frankhernandez538]

What's Jesus greatest commandment

[@johnosumba1980]

Which Catholic are you talking about? cause the Catholic He is representing never changed any commandment but it is a propaganda and lies peddled by Protestant Churches.

[@balukuroben7458]

@@davidlloyd1750 why was martin luther not killed?

[@lizburke4303]

@@davidlloyd1750 it is sad to me that those who criticize Catholicism, as you do, have a TOTAL misunderstanding of it. You are actually criticizing something else. Sorry you are blinded by your misunderstanding. I hope you can find a Catholic who can help you to better understand and clear up your unjust judgements. Such a shame.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Jesus said, "This is my body", "This is my blood of the New Covenant". "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." Paul said, "Whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." The Catholic religion doesn't have a clue as to what that means. The Catholic religion is all involved in what the priest has to go through to change the bread and wine into the "actual body and blood of Jesus". But if you read EVERY account of the Lord's supper in the New Testament no emphasis at all is given to the priest. In fact, there is no special priesthood defined in the Christian church. It doesn't exist anywhere in any of the writings of the New Testament. There is no New Testament authority for a special priesthood and, in fact, a special priesthood is actually an anachronism of the Old Law. The Catholic religion doesn't have exclusive rights to the Lord's Supper and, it can be argued that the Catholic religion has NO right to His body and blood but that's a whole other issue. Jesus did not require that a magician in a robe turn the bread and wine into His body and blood. That happens by faith to the one who believes it. Transubstantiation is a foreign doctrine to the New Testament. Jesus didn't specify it or authorize it and neither did anyone else in the New Testament. In other words, it was a later addon, which immediately disqualifies it as being of God. We are warned against adding to and deleting from the word of God. But I'm not through. These heretics who are out there claiming that this "represents" Christ's body and blood are, by definition, eating and drinking unworthily. Jesus did NOT say, "This REPRESENTS my body and this REPRESENTS my blood." No. He said, "Do THIS in memory of me" NOT SOMETHING ELSE. It galls me to hear a supposed fundamentalist lead the congregation in taking the Lord's Supper and hear him say the word "represents". They shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, for they neither go in themselves, neither suffer they them that are entering to go in.

[@thereaction18]

Jesus himself is the high priest and he consecrated bread and wine the day of his resurrection among the disciples traveling to Emmaus. He immediately disappeared from their sight, and they recognized him in the breaking of the bread. The catholic priest acts in persona christi performing the same consecration in every instance of the singular catholic mass. There is only one mass, one body, and one chalice, and it is present in heaven and present for us on earth until he comes in glory.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@thereaction18 - That may sound pretty to those who do not know the scriptures and that's fine. Jesus told us that not many would receive His teaching. Those who know the scriptures love the elegance of the kingdom of God. Jesus is the High Priest who offered Hinself once for all. Contrary to the teaching of the Empire's religion, Jesus does not have to be sacrificed over and over again. The doctrine of the kingdom of God is beautiful in its simplicity. We don't need a magician in a robe. That whole ecclesiastical structure is an affront to the body of Christ. It's a completely different religion. That's why I like reading and studying God's word. It saves us from all the superfluous religious mumbo-jumbo of paganism. I'm glad I dont have to even think about that other stuff, let alone try to justify it to God and man.

[@thereaction18]

@@GizmoFromPizmo You enjoy the word as long as you don't expect yourself to have to obey all of it.

[@davidramadeen8129]

""Examine yourselves"" first (through the Word of ELoHiM), find all ""leaven"", then repent from them, and accept Yeshuah sacrifice for the forgiveness of your LIES==> the only Way to received Yeshuah, who is Salvation of YaH. There are many Jesus being preached in the world today; but only ONE is TRUTH. BLESSED are the ONES who find him.

[@redmotherfive]

Jesus was referring to the Passover. Lane is seriously confused, beware of taking his words for granted. Most of the early church "fathers" hated Jews and wrote about it openly. Beware what you take for granted. Research history and read their writings in full, you may be surprised what you learn. These early Gentile/Pagan men didn't know how to read and understand the Hebrew bible.

[@martinoneill2253]

YES YOU SHOULD

[@ElCineHefe]

Not the first Christians who were Jews but the first Romans who remade the faith in the image of their own Roman gods.

[@bryancy4012]

This is not true. The word became flesh, and dwelt among use. It's not figurative. The Word is the flesh we eat.

[@josephzammit6396]

Well said! In the Prologue, verse 14, St John says: And the Word became flesh. He uses the noun sarks. Sarks in Greek means flesh to show that Jesus was God and Man too. I’m publishing a weekly KZbin video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you.

[@donaldcooley897]

It is always false teaching of the apostate church to catholic sheep who do no not what the scriptures say about it . There is no life is the ritual of the eucharist . The 6th chapter of John is solely to unbelieving disciples that can not understand What Christ is saying . because he is speaking is spiritual terms and the disciples in their cardinal minds can not understand spiritual things . all of Christ life he was trying to get his people to believe he was the son of God that come down from the father to give life to the world all of his miracles was performed to prove he was divine from John 2 ; at the wedding to all other miracles In verse 11 at the wedding his disciples believe on him . and the 6 Chapter of John it says he who believes has everlasting life . Dr. Alan Hales put it in to perspective , the 6th chapter is all about believing God for salvation or everlasting life verse 40 and verse 47 ; I am going to go farther to say that verse 53-54 Christ is speaking about spiritual Life and there is no where in the scriptures that state there is eternal life in any thing but faith or believing on the lord Jesus Christ He sacrificed him self and his blood cleanse us of our sins and they are remembered no more Hebrews 10 : 12 - 18 . you catholic are like the unbelieving disciples you can`t understand spiritual things . The life he is talking about in v.53 is the same life Paul is talking about in Eph. 2 : 4 - 5 we are quicken by the spirit or made alive by the spirit through faith Eph. 2 : 8 - 9 and not by literally eating his flesh and drink his blood . It is all spiritual Verse 63 the words that I speak are spiritual and they are life . again there is no life or forgiveness of sin in the euricharist . That is a deception of the devil . You all need to get saved by faith and believing on Christ

[@olddoclindenbrook]

Umm, a bit of Catholic Dogma going on here (nicely cloaked I might add). Still Transubstantiation was not even established within the church until almost 1200 years after Christ... And yes, Jesus did OFTEN talk in hyperbole and parables! In fact, he did it so often, the apostles were repeatedly confused and he had to explain it to them afterwards. Saul of Tarsus (The Apostle Paul), who was essentially "downloaded" with the teaching of Christ, and he nicely clears up the confusion in 1 Corinthians 11: 24 "and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in REMEMBRANCE of me." Also repeated in 1 Corinthians 11: 25 "remembrance of me". Only ONE of the four Gospels of JC says this right... (Luke 22: 19) The RCC has for centuries tired to control people, by controlling who get's Chirst, or who is worthy of Christ. Making it actually physical (when it was/is not), worked well to enhance that control. The reenacting of the Lord's Supper is clearly a "spiritual remembrance". If you think it's the real "body & blood"- now THAT is taking the bible literally... as such, you'd better start gouging your eyes out, the next time you see a sexually attractive person! (Matt. 5: 29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." - left eye is okay, I guess. ;-)

[@row1landr]

It is real.... there are thousands of Eucharistic miracles that have occurred over hundreds of years and simply cannot be explained by medical science....look them up online.....Miracles of the Eucharist.

[@row1landr]

Also listen to the talk by Brant Pitre called the Jewish roots of the Eucharist.

[@lizburke4303]

Doc in your own mind, it seems. So much Rubbish from you.

[@elkinsalazar6185]

Lets said that it is the first council in the year 80 and the represents of the new religion (christianismo) are: Henry the 8th, Zuinglio, Calvin, Luther, Willis C Hoover, Jhon Smyth, Jhon, Menno Simons, Wesly, James S White, Joseph Smith, Jhon Fox... And lets suppose that they are the first father of the church and each of them write his own letters and thoughs... And 2000 thousand years the humanity found those letters... With whom you will go? Who has the true? Theres is not unity... Each of them is saying: you can believe wherever you please!

[@user-cd5og8to5p]

Thank you Fr Frank. Listening made me believe like I never believe before what receiving communion really means and receiving the body and the blood Jesus Christ. I feel so much more confident in my faith as a Catholic and my desire to teach my family and anybody I know that faith of Jesus Christ Amen